Insight 7: Breaking down inter and intra Agency siloes

In the course of the inquiries, the Taskforce heard of multiple instances of officers appearing to rely on hierarchy to stifle critical discussion. In a few cases, critical information was most likely withheld from more junior staff, including in circumstances where the junior staff were responsible for preparing briefings and submissions for use by Agency Heads, Ministers, and external oversight bodies. The information was most likely withheld because the relevant information was invariably contentious or controversial and the staff member was assessed as too junior despite usually having the most relevant technical expertise.

Had the technical experts been exposed to important and relevant information and encouraged to participate in critical discussion, it may have highlighted organisational risks before those risks were realised. On other occasions, when junior staff accurately identified risks with the Scheme, these were not always acted upon by senior leadership.

In circumstances where innovative policy and service delivery initiatives are being developed, greater consideration needs to be given to genuinely collaborative real world and digital work spaces. Particularly when these initiatives are being developed rapidly, agencies should consider adopting a posture of open and collaborative communication so that risks are identified early in the development process. Perhaps paradoxically, such an approach becomes more, not less, relevant at times when quick decision making is required. The objective is to assemble all the relevant information and analysis using parallel processes rather than sequential ones.

The Scheme moved rapidly from concept to delivery with subject matter experts seemingly excluded from key decisions or operating with limited information. The Scheme was permitted to commence and expand, in large part, due to relevant information being unduly compartmentalised. This did not always appear to be driven by legitimate security or privacy concerns but because key individuals most likely made unilateral decisions to closely hold information and exclude others from the decision making process. Information appears to have been compartmentalised on the basis of seniority but a discernible schism also appears between technical experts, policy experts and legal experts. This extended to withholding information from counterparts in other agencies. In particular, the Department of Human Services repeatedly demonstrated its unwillingness to collaborate or share even basic information with DSS despite their shared accountabilities.